TBFC vs. ENFR

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TBFC is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Brinsmere, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. TBFC is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, TBFC returned 12.23% vs 28.68% for ENFR. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

TBFC vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFC achieves a 5.07% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 26.07% return.

TBFC

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.04%
• 6M: 3.63%
• YTD: 5.07%
• 1Y: 12.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ENFR

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 0.08%
• 6M: 27.71%
• YTD: 26.07%
• 1Y: 28.68%
• 3Y*: 27.13%
• 5Y*: 20.42%
• 10Y*: 11.57%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TBFC vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	5.07%	11.38%	8.22%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	26.07%	5.88%	41.13%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and ENFR is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2024	0.26

The correlation between TBFC and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.26 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 64
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 63

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 73
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 70
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 59

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

TBFC vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	TBFC	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	1.95	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	2.71	-0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.33	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.18	3.39	-1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.92	8.36	+0.56

TBFC vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFC and ENFR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-68.28%	+59.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-8.64%	+3.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.58%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.29%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-62.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.89%	-3.84%	+2.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-15.89%	+14.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.33%	3.50%	-2.17%

Volatility

TBFC vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) is 2.56%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 5.61%. This indicates that TBFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.56%	5.61%	-3.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.92%	11.96%	-6.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.89%	15.06%	-8.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.26%	19.27%	-12.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.26%	24.65%	-17.39%

TBFC vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.01%, less than ENFR's 3.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	3.98%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	3.01%	3.28%	2.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and ENFR in my portfolio?

TBFC and ENFR have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TBFC or ENFR?

ENFR has higher volatility (5.61%) compared to TBFC (2.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFC dropped -8.89% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 28.68% vs 12.23% for TBFC. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, TBFC has been the lower-risk option at 2.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFC or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 28.68% return vs 12.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TBFC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TBFC or ENFR?

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 3.98%, compared with 3.01% for TBFC.

What is the main difference between TBFC and ENFR?

TBFC is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.73), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.